Separating fact from fake news
Socialism...Seriously: A Brief Guide to Human Liberation, considers how the left can analyze the world in the Trumpian era of "alternative facts.", author of
ALL GOVERNMENTS lie, as the independent journalist I.F. Stone once said. But not all governments lie as proudly as those led by Donald Trump.
This guy started his presidency issuing an easily disprovable falsehood about the size of the crowd at his inauguration, a typically Trumpish blend of silly and creepy, like a dictator declaring that from this day forward the sky is officially orange (or climate change is a hoax). He lies so often that a whole category of his lies are denials of previous lies.
Corporate-owned media outlets generally obey the unwritten rule that the spokespeople for government sources should be treated as credible--regardless of how many times they've been caught lying--but the new president's obvious disdain for the truth pushed many of them to adopt a more Stone-like stance of skepticism.
But Trump only needed to lob some missiles and bombs in enemy lands to restore the press back to its natural state of blind trust in authority. The Pentagon announced that it dropped the "Mother of All Bombs" in eastern Afghanistan, and there was little mainstream questioning of the government's claim that this monstrosity with a mile-wide blast radius managed to only kill bad guys.
Clearly the left has to take a different approach, and treat the word of the U.S. government as we would that of any individual with a similarly long history of murder and mendacity.
But if we don't trust the government--and, by extension, many of the mainstream news reports that simply repeat government talking points--then how do we get our information?
The left doesn't have the resources to replicate all of the bureaus and investigative reporting of media corporations. Progressive media like Democracy Now! and Truthout (or even your humble correspondents at SocialistWorker.org) can sometimes deliver important scoops, but radicals have no choice but to rely on larger outlets for much of our information.
The defining difference between the left and the corporate media is not that we have different facts--because we often don't--but that we have different frameworks for interpreting and drawing conclusions from those facts. That's important to keep in mind at a time when "alternative facts" are becoming a growing problem on the left as well as the right.
OUR STARTING point at SocialistWorker.org is that, as mentioned, we don't trust "our" government.
But we should be consistent like I.F. Stone and be suspicious of all governments--especially those like the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, which has tortured and murdered hundreds of thousands of people and lied about its crimes with a boldness that would make Sean Spicer bow down in admiration.
This is unfortunately not a universal method across the left. Like the closed circuit of right-wing websites passing the same fabrications back and forth about disease-spreading immigrants and "black-on-black crime," there are a growing number of websites recycling dubious speculations about "false flag" operations in Syria designed to discredit the Assad government.
These conspiracy theories not only suck a few people down the "truther" rabbit hole, but they also create a deliberately muddled atmosphere on the left that can make new activists think they need to read detailed studies of the property of sarin gas just to have an opinion on something that couldn't be more clear: the Assad government is monstrous.
SocialistWorker.org has drawn that conclusion not because the U.S. government says so, but because millions of Syrians have said so--including those who have been killed, jailed and exiled in the process.
That gets to the next element of our framework for evaluating facts and understanding the world. We may not trust governments, but we listen closely to ordinary people, particularly when they are organized in large-scale protest movements.
Protesters can lie, of course, and protest movements are subject to manipulation, whether by foreign agents or homegrown opportunists. But our starting assumption when hundreds of thousands or millions of people take to the streets is that they are not mere puppets of a foreign power.
HERE'S THE thing about government lies: They're usually not very effective--and in reality, they don't need to be.
When the cops kill another unarmed African American and claim he was charging at all five of them with a pair of scissors, they don't get away with it because we all believe them--certainly not those of us who live in the neighborhood. They get away with it because cops are allowed to murder unarmed Black people. The lie is just a formality.
Or take the lies that the Bush administration told about Iraq having "weapons of mass destruction," which some now cite as "precedent" for the U.S. lying about Assad using chemical weapons.
There are two false assumptions that have developed in recent years about the big WMD lie.
The first is that most people were tricked by the lie into supporting the war. In fact, the U.S. population was pretty much split down the middle, and the protests against the Iraq invasion before it happened were some of the largest in U.S. history. Like killer cops, the Bush administration went to war with Iraq not because they were able to fool us, but because they had the power to disregard popular will.
The second myth is that the WMD lie was essential for the war. In fact, it wasn't necessarily the belief in WMDs that led people to support the invasion, but the other way around. Just as people who want to drill for more oil find a way to not believe in climate change, people who wanted the invasion to happen convinced themselves that Saddam Hussein had his finger on the button of an arsenal of WMDs.
As for our side, while we certainly didn't believe the Bush's lies--especially when they were contradicted by the person charged with inspecting Iraq for WMDs--many of us wouldn't have been surprised to learn that Iraq did indeed hide chemical or biological weapons. After all, the U.S. had considered Saddam Hussein an ally until he became an enemy.
Our opposition to the war wasn't based on believing that Iraq didn't have WMDs, but on the anti-imperialist understanding that the United States isn't a force that would protect the world from those weapons.
Similarly today, opposing the U.S. waging war on the Syrian government doesn't require us to believe the Assad regime didn't carry out the recent poison gas attack (which it almost certainly did)--any more than protesting the Ferguson police murder of Mike Brown required us to know that Brown hadn't first robbed cigarillos from a convenience store (which he almost certainly didn't.)
THE LEFT that needs to grow into a force that can challenge Donald Trump has to be one that doesn't create its own alternative facts to fit into our alternative politics. On the contrary, we have to do our best to gather and interpret new information from all available sources in order to keep up our understanding of a constantly changing world.
This dynamism is another element of our political framework, and it's admittedly more complicated than simply trusting what the leaders of protest movements say more than governments. Assessing the changes in inter-imperial rivalries and the competing political tendencies inside opposition movements is not an exact science, and it requires a willingness to debate and change one's mind.
But there's a basic outline for understanding the U.S. role in the Middle East that's clear. For years after the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. goal was regime change to install puppet governments across the region. Those plans were laid to waste, first by the failed occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan and then by the 2011 Arab Spring rebellions, which turned "regime change" into a revolutionary demand that the U.S. government instinctively opposed.
That's why the Obama administration was very cautious about backing rebels in Syria even as Assad turned the country into a killing field that sprouted both ISIS and a mass exodus of refugees to the surrounding region and some to Europe. And it's why Trump came into office talking even more openly about working with and not against the Syrian regime.
Yes, the U.S. government has lied to go to war, and it will undoubtedly do so in the future. But we can assume that it isn't lying about Assad's sarin attack, not because Trump of all people is a trustworthy president, but because he didn't want to go to war against Syria.
(Of course, reports like this New York Times article make it unclear if the Trump administration is even competent enough to know whether or not it's lying.)
Fifteen years ago, the 9/11 conspiracy cult did damage, not good, to the antiwar cause, and more than a few decent leftists were sucked into the abyss of all-night Internet sleuthing and "you must be in on it, too" paranoia.
Their problem wasn't that they were wrong that the U.S. government was probably hiding details about 9/11--like the involvement of Saudi Arabia. The problem was the illusion that if only they could uncover the "truth" and bring the conspiracy to light, we could get back to the normal decency of American capitalism and empire.
Today, it's critical that the left exposes Trump's lies, rather than counter them with our own. Otherwise, instead of winning millions of new people to our side, we'll just add to the general cynicism that you can't trust anything you read anywhere.